cathloicsdetruyjHonestly… simply for a Hollywood sword/epic film it was well done technically and in plot/character development. The one glaring weakness was every time Orlando Bloom’s character, Balian, opened his mouth he sounded out of place with his content. Bloom did a pretty decent job acting but the scripting was SO *now* not crusade-like. I couldn’t imagine anyone during that time talking like that. They might have had the same sentiments but they wouldn’t have said it “that way.”
About Sobby’s points (Sobchek had listed three areas of concern in his post at the forum.)
1. Anti-Westernist - definitely but at the time of the Crusades…there was a lot wrong with the “west.” And…they did a very good job of explaining the difference between moderate and power hungry crusaders.
2. Anti-Christian - also definitely. The only close to cool Christianity was second to the secular humanist POV being espoused. This movie constantly promoted the theme that the answer lay in a man’s mind and heart, not in fear of or dependence on God. At the same time I don’t know too many “Christian” leaders of that time who would have had a truly “Christ-like” view. So the answer wouldn’t be to make them out to be good Christians. At the same time it is obvious that secular humanism takes that weakness of the period to promote itself. Not good.
3. Nihilism - Yes. That was also a definite. Balian’s transcendant questions and horrible pain are never adequately addressed. Death is treated as inevitable and meaningless. Even the rallying cry to protect the innocent falls a little flat. And again, given the period, would’t it be appropriate that nihilism-like point of views would be the result of such horror?
I think this is a great opportunity for the Body of ...